Cover not available

Article published In: Lingvisticæ Investigationes
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.150–172

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Are superordinates such as furniture and belongings collective nouns?

 | Université Grenoble Alpes
Published online: 26 February 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00002.gar
Abstract
One area of debate as to the boundaries of the class of “collective nouns” concerns non-count singular nouns such as furniture, which are typically used for several units of different kinds. Arguments for and against inclusion have been put forward, but ultimately, what has been noted is a number of similarities and differences compared with count collective nouns. This makes both positions as legitimate, especially as collective nouns are a partly heterogeneous class (e.g. only those denoting humans, or sometimes animals, license plural override: the committee were… vs. *the bouquet were…). The present paper addresses the issue from a different angle, comparing furniture nouns not just with other singular nouns (whether collective or superordinate), but with count nouns in the plural (e.g. toys). This new angle enables us to propose that furniture nouns are superordinate hyperonyms of plural, rather than singular, categories. This notion accounts for all the similarities and differences noted between furniture nouns and count collective nouns, and leads to the conclusion that furniture nouns are clearly not collective nouns. The analysis is then extended to non-count plural nouns that denote units (e.g. belongings), which have been neglected, or sometimes rejected on arbitrary grounds. The present study shows that they are not collective nouns either, and that they, too, are superordinates, some of them hyperonyms of plural categories.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Review of existing arguments for and against the inclusion of furniture / belongings among collective nouns
    • 1.1Count vs. non-count nouns
    • 1.2Additivity vs. non-additivity
    • 1.3Contiguity vs. similarity
    • 1.4“Part of” vs. “kind of” relations
    • 1.5Set profiling vs. entity abstraction
  • 2.A theoretical model of sense relations for furniture nouns and belongings nouns
    • 2.1Starting point: proximity of furniture nouns with plural count nouns
    • 2.2 Furniture nouns as hyperonyms of plural categories
    • 2.3 Furniture nouns are not collective nouns
    • 2.4What differences between plural count nouns and furniture nouns?
    • 2.5How do belongings nouns fit in?
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals : A morphosyntactic approach. Coll. Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arigne, V. (2011). La figure du tout intégré et les noms discrets collectifs. Anglophonia 301, pp. 59–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bache, C. (2002). On Categories in Linguistics. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 341, pp. 71–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–104). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Davies, M. 2008- . <[URL]>
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic point of view. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp. 33–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dogget, R. M. et al. (1980). Forecasts of the quantity and composition of solid waste. University of Michigan: Research Reporting Series.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flaux, N. (1999). A propos des noms collectifs. Revue de linguistique romane n°251–252, tome 63, pp. 471–502.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flaux, N. & Van de Velde, D. (2000). Les noms en français : esquisse de classement. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gil, D. (1996). Maltese “collective nouns”: A typological perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 8:1, pp. 53–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin, & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 9–45). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language as a source of evidence for theories of spatial representation. Perception 411, pp. 1128–1152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joosten, F. (2006). Why club and lingerie do not belong together. A plea for redefining collective nouns. In G. Kleiber et al. (Eds.), La relation partie-tout (pp. 73–88). Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joosten, F. et al. (2007). Dutch collective nouns and conceptual profiling. Linguistics 45:1, pp. 85–132. <[URL]>
Kirkby, J. (1971 [1746]). A new English grammar. Menton: Scolar Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lammert, M. (2010). Sémantique et cognition : les noms collectifs. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Référence collective massive vs. référence plurielle indéfinie. Langue française 1831, pp. 87–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Les pluralia tantum sous l’angle du collectif. Langue française 1851, pp. 73–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1985). Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition 191, pp. 31–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2004 [2002]). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, L. (2010). Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary, online edition (2014). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quine, W. Van Orman. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reed, S. K. (2012). Cognitive theories and applications, 9th edition. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. -J. (2013). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (2007). A taxonomy of basic natural entities. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann and L. Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 35–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Oats and wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Typological Studies in Langage vol. 6: Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Kleineberg, Désirée & Wiltrud Mihatsch
2025. Diachronic evidence for Spanish object mass nouns as a peripheral category. In The Diachrony of Word Class Peripheries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 238], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Gardelle, Laure
2024. A Swarm of Helicopters, the Last Couple of Weeks: A Constructional Analysis of the Syntax/Semantics Interface for the Classification of N1 as “Collective” or “Quantificational”. In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Désirée Kleineberg
2024. The Interaction of Morphosyntax and Semantics in Romance Object Mass Nouns. In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Lammert, Marie, Anne-Sophie Besse, Nadège Doignon-Camus, Francine Gerhard, Vassiliadou Hélène, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Lire et comprendre à l’école élémentaire : singularité, pluralité et collectif. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 09007 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Semantic Plurality [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 349], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue